None of that follows. First, nothing stops God from telling some people to do one thing and others to do another. Second, it is conceptually confused to think God could be confused. God is omnipotent and omniscient and thus is not confused. Third, as God is omnipotent he could have given us perfect knowledge of his attitudes if he so wished. As he has not, this tells us something, namely that he isn't particularly bothered about what we get up to or that we know what his attitudes are. — Bartricks

It is a privilege to live in a time when someone knows God's mind and can explain it to the rest of us. Or is this just a confused and confusing expression of the human limit of what can be known of or about God or His motives? That is, an obscure way of saying not only do we not know, but we cannot know?

It looks like !80 is up to his usual tricks, which isn't surprising. — Apollodorus

It is not my purpose here to defend 180, his arm more able when sleeping than mine awake.

Instead I mean to call you out. Your snide little piece of rhetoric would shame a third-grader to use on a playground. It is disgusting here on this site. But apparently is the measure of the man you are, in sum a know-it-all who knows nothing and is proud of his ignorance.

But behind the infantile remark - for we know you are not an infant - is the lie. You are a liar and thus an enemy here, and having passed the bounds of civil discourse, are neither entitled to it, nor should receive it.

Sancta Mater Ecclesia did what it has always done, more or less successfully (e.g., the Reformation), for so long. That is, what was considered appropriate morally to the extent that didn't endanger its survival as a powerful institution, relatively content with its place and perception of itself as the One Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. — Ciceronianus the White

Yes, that would come close to a fair historical judgement in my view.

:up:

lol Very funny. I think you're talking about yourself. Other than that, if you think that quoting Marx and Engels is a "lie", then you should take issue with the original authors.

Which is it, God or belief in God? Or like me do you hold those to be exactly the same thing? — tim wood

Interesting view.
There were three sons of a man. One was an atheist, the other, a theist. The third one was God.

The atheist and the theist both were ethical. This was so because god existed.

The theist believed in the god, and was moral.

The atheist obviously did not believe in god, but was moral.

These two boys were moral, while one believed in god, the other, did not.

---------------------------

So far so good.

---------------------------
There was a second man, with two sons. One was theist, the other, an atheist, the third, god.

Both the theist and the atheist were immoral.

---------------------------
Third version:

There was a man with two sons. There was no god in their family or in their world.

Both sons were ethical.

---------------------------
Fourth version:
No god, both sons were immoral.


------------------------------------------------

The way I see it, each of the four possibilities are probable, and the probability distribution curve among them is very likely a level curve at 25% for each scenario.

I mean to call you out. Your snide little piece of rhetoric would shame a third-grader to use on a playground. It is disgusting here on this site. But apparently is the measure of the man you are, in sum a know-it-all who knows nothing and is proud of his ignorance.

But behind the infantile remark - for we know you are not an infant - is the lie. You are a liar and thus an enemy here, and having passed the bounds of civil discourse, are neither entitled to it, nor should receive it. — tim wood

This, addressed to Appoloshit, is my precise feeling for him. Except you, Tim Wood, expressed it so much more nicely than how I will put it here.

Apollofuck is appalling in his slimy stupid non-reason. I seldom hate people on this site, but him I hate. Even 3017Amen is likeable, I like him, despite his being stupider than a doorknob. But he is honest, he gives his heart, and he is a good man. This Appoloklunt is nothing but stupidity dress'd in women's clothes. Or his posts can be likened to "How I suck shit on a philosophy website."

God knows, (figure of speech) we are not all geniuses here, and almost all of us lack a basic grounding in knowledge. But if philosophical skill is a building, and fooloso4 is on the top floor on this website, then I'm on the second floor, and Appolosuckmeoff is in the sub-sub-sub-sub basement, and his attitude is so deep down in the bowels of earth, that he is at danger of breaking through to the magmatic core.

I am just appalled that the moderators tolerate Appolodurfus around here.

God knows, (figure of speech) we are not all geniuses here, and almost all of us lack a basic grounding in knowledge. — god must be atheist

Well, your genius definitely surpasses everyone else's here. It must be terribly frustrating for you, so I understand.

Depends on the hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy. If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes. — Apollodorus

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...?

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...? — jorndoe

...ah, the perfect weekend...

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...? — jorndoe

Anything that distracts from God, religion or spiritual things.

If you use your guitar etc. for religious purposes, e.g., to play religious songs, then it would be a different story.

Ultimately, it depends on your attitude and on the way material objects influence the way you relate to God and to spiritual matters.

,

Apollodorus has nothing to offer.

From the guidlines:

Types of posters who are not welcome here:

Evangelists: Those who must convince everyone that their religion, ideology, political persuasion, or philosophical theory is the only one worth having.

Why is he still here?

I commend to you all the flag, at the bottom of each of Apollodorus' posts. It draws the attention of the mods to something they ought ameliorate.

And this is bad? — baker

Why would you conclude that?

If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes. — Apollodorus

What kind of immaterial content would they have?

Anything that distracts from God, religion or spiritual things.

If you use your guitar etc. for religious purposes, e.g., to play religious songs, then it would be a different story. — Apollodorus

I've been exposed to guitar masses, and suspect attendance at them is mandatory in hell. But what is it that renders religious songs immaterial?

Sorry, but if they're immaterial because they refer to immaterial things, I wonder then what immaterial things may be. Things which are not material?

Sorry, but if they're immaterial because they refer to immaterial things, I wonder then what immaterial things may be. Things which are not material? — Ciceronianus the White

No idea. The word I actually used was "materialist" not "material".

If they have a materialist content, which they tend to do, then yes. — Apollodorus

It was my reply to @jorndoe's question:

Do interests in hobbies music science poetry gardening philosophy count as belief in material possessions? — jorndoe

The "materialist content" of interests was what I was talking about.

You mean a guitar to play, flower seeds and a garden, a book to read, ...?
— jorndoe

Anything that distracts from God, religion or spiritual things. — Apollodorus

This sums up the poverty of Apo's position. As if guitar playing and flowers were not spiritual.

He'd have everyone reading scripture and praying. The very obverse of spirituality. Monkish subservience, chaste obedience. Adherence to his one true doctrine.

Of course, he cannot see the obsequious degeneracy of his own doctrine.

As if guitar playing and flowers were not spiritual. — Banno

Actually, that's your statement, not mine.

My position is that it depends on the meaning you give to objects and the purpose for which you use them. You can use a knife to cut bread or kill someone.

Incidentally, the same is true of flowers or plants in general. Plants or plant extracts can be used for medicinal purposes in small doses or to kill someone in larger doses or quantities, etc.

IMO that isn't "doctrine", it's fact.

He'd have everyone reading scripture and praying. The very obverse of spirituality. Monkish subservience, chaste obedience. — Banno

Not at all. I very rarely read scripture. Maybe you do, seeing that you are so knowledgeable on the subject.

The "materialist content" of interests was what I was talking about. — Apollodorus

Ah, I see. The materialist content of interests in music, poetry, science and gardening, then. So, if I'm interested in the music of Brahms because I enjoy it, or in the poetry of Wallace Stevens because I enjoy it, does my interest in them have a materialist content?

Thank you, that'd be nice.

So, if I'm interested in the music of Brahms because I enjoy it, or in the poetry of Wallace Stevens because I enjoy it, does my interest in them have a materialist content? — Ciceronianus the White

I don't know you, so I can't tell. As I said, it depends:

My position is that it depends on the meaning you give to objects and the purpose for which you use them. You can use a knife to cut bread or kill someone. — Apollodorus

If something has a materialist meaning to you personally or has the effect of making you more materialist-minded, etc., then I suppose you could say that it has a materialist meaning, content or effect for you.

By the way, you don't need to be religious to see it that way. A person may be into making money or accumulating material possessions and another one can be more interested in culture, moral values or interpersonal .relationships. You can look on "God" as an universal principle of goodness or justice, etc., etc. But people who have a phobia against religion will still accuse you of being an "evangelist" or whatever.

Huh. Plato's ethics? Virtue Ethics? Stoicism? Confucianism? Buddhism?

If you hold the "Big Daddy" view of God, your moral point of view is inherently childish, selfish and fearful--what won't you do to avoid a good spanking? What would you do if there was no spanker, or if spanking took a holiday, so to speak?

https://www.gocomics.com/tomthedancingbug/2003/10/04/ — Ciceronianus the White

It seems there's been a slight confusion. Entirely my fault. Apologies.

There are two roles God fulfills viz. 1) legisilator (maker of laws) and 2) judge (punishment of moral offenses). What Dostoevsky means by "if there is no God, everything is permitted" has more to do with God's function as a legislator than a judge. I'm not in any way saying that God as judge doesn't have an effect on the conduct of the faithful - it does, Hell is an effective deterrent just as prison and capital punishment are.

To elaborate, God would, being an authority/expert on morality, issue moral decrees that are crystal clear. What do I mean by "...moral decrees that are crystal clear"? One only has to take a look at atheistic moral theories, those which you mention above and others, to come to the realization that they're all less than perfect, meaning a particular action can, on certain occasions, be good and in a different situation, the exact same action can be bad. Put simply, our conduct is morally ambiguous insofar as moral ambiguity means good in one case but bad in another.

God, on the other hsnd, can be understood as the personification of perfect morality and, by that token, will smoothen out all the wrinkles - moral paradoxes that are part and parcel of current atheistic ethics - and what this should achieve is a code of morals that draws a clear boundary between what's good and what's bad.

Basically, atheistic moral theories are missing definitive answers to moral questions. An act is sometimes good and at other times bad which implies that all acts are neither obligatory (good) nor prohibited (bad). In short, everything is permitted, you just have to know the right situation for a particular action. Compare this particularly unsatisfactory state of affairs with divine morality - God's moral decrees would consist of a list of absolute dos and don'ts that are universal (applies to everyone and at all times) i.e. it'll be able neatly categorize actions as either definitely good or certainly bad, no grey areas.

Morality requires God, not belief in God. No intelligent theist thinks belief in God is necessary for moral behaviour. It's a straw man position.

Do I hold belief in God and God to be the same? Er, no, because I'm not incredibly dumb. One is a belief. The other is an omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person. Big difference.

Note too that if belief in God and God are one and the same, what exactly is the content of the belief? A belief that a belief? A belief that a belief that what?

And note as well that if belief in God and God are one and the same, then God exists even by your own lights, for presumably you accept that some people believe in God.

And then you'd have to think there are lots of Gods. But that makes no sense, given that there can only be one omnipotent being.

This is why good reasoners don't confuse beliefs with their objects.

Basically, atheistic moral theories are missing definitive answers to moral questions. An act is sometimes good and at other times bad which implies that all acts are neither obligatory (good) nor prohibited (bad). — TheMadFool

The same thing is true for religious morality which varies according to the denomination, church, preacher/Iman, and varies with the subjective preferences of individual believers. We have no way of knowing what a higher consciousness thinks our moral choices should be so why make the claim it provides a foundation?

It is a privilege to live in a time when someone knows God's mind and can explain it to the rest of us. Or is this just a confused and confusing expression of the human limit of what can be known of or about God or His motives? That is, an obscure way of saying not only do we not know, but we cannot know? — tim wood

You can't refute an argument with a sarcastic tone of voice, to paraphrase David Lewis.

The same thing is true for religious morality which varies according to the denomination, church, preacher/Iman, and varies with the subjective preferences of individual believers. We have no way of knowing what a higher consciousness thinks our moral choices should be so why make the claim it provides a foundation? — Tom Storm

You're barking up the wrong tree. That there are different Gods, one or many for every culture, is irrlevant. God or gods, in whichever culture fae/they are found in, represnt the idea of a perfect moral authority - an infallible creator of mora laws - and that's what the issue is all about? All atheistic moral theories - utilitarianism, Kantian - aim to be God-like when it comes to moral codification i.e. the idea is to enable a clear distinction between good and bad in every case without ambiguity. You know, no doubt, that extant moral theories are considered inadequate precisely because they can't do that.

I cannot but agree.

omnipotent, omniscient, omnibenevolent person — Bartricks

This is a common slip-up. How do you reconcile omnipotent with omnibenevolent?

Morality requires God, not belief in God. — Bartricks

How do you tell the difference?

And note as well that if belief in God and God are one and the same, then God exists even by your own lights, — Bartricks

Indeed, as an idea, which I believe in. And it's very simple, but I doubt you're geared for it. That is, God is found and only to be found as an idea.

You appear to hold that God is real and exists in some sense independent of mind. The criteria for being real and existing are themselves pretty simple. You will understand what I mean then, when I say to you, if you want Him real, then make him real, demonstrate His existence by the simple evidence of existing.

And two points; 1) the omnipotence/omnibenevolence problem has been around or a while and is no small problem. And 2) the Christian Creed is "We believe..". If yours is different, including "God exists," then either you're not a Christian, or an ill-informed Christian, or you're selling something.

a

emotive nonsense. How is there a contradiction between omnipotence and omnibenevolence?